Hey,

Have run a Deathwatch campaign now for about 4-5 months and there are a few issues that keep coming up.

1. How should i handle heavy ranged weapons (and other ranged weapons for that matter) when a horde comes into melee range? Against non horde targets my Devastator Marine usually just takes a hit to move out of combat so he can shoot. When a horde attacks the horde is kinda all over the place. They have solved this by dropping grenades at their feet and just soaking the damage. I find this solution to be unsatisfactory. How should i handle this since you usually cant shoot when you are in a melee?

2. A few of my players have commented on the Space Wolves that they are very underpowered compared to the other chapters. I tend to agree. I have read a lot of Space Wolves novels and they seem to be as badass as they come. Especially in close combat. I find it strange they dont have things like Frenzy. Do you think it would be unbalancing if i added this to their talent choices? Any other suggestions on how to beef them up a bit without going over the top?

Any help would be appreciated

Khalayne said:

I guess my question is: What sort of Hordes are you using? Even basic Guardsmen armed with combat knives have the potential to do fairly hefty damage as a Horde. My Kill-Team is Rank 6, and they take appreciable damage if I roll well enough. I had Hordes of Nurglings a couple weeks ago that had my Kill-Team squealing for mercy (consistently rolling 30+ on 3d10+3. Sometimes my dice are out to kill my players). Are you factoring in the bonus damage Hordes get?

Khalayne said:

You clearly haven't seen Space Wolf psychic powers.

With that being said, I haven't looked at the rules for Space Wolves too much, so I can't really draw a conclusion here. But my advice would be to check out the First Founding book, as it presents additional options for that Chapter (and others!) Don't go house-ruling things until you see if one of the sourcebooks fixes it for you!

Khalayne said:

Using grenades in melee is a special talent that Ultramarines Tyranid war veterans have. In theory it's hard to argue against this because it would be possible. Otoh, a frag hand grenade doesn't do that much magnitude damage(4+1=5) and it runs risk of doing no damage at all because 2d10+2 Pen 0 might not get over the enemy's soak of Toughness+armour (most people roll that to-wound damage roll once for all additional hits generated by a single hit).

How about this:
1. Free attacks for the enemy without the Ultramarines talent unless he drops it at his own feet. It's a bit shaky rules-wise but will be an effective deterrence.
2. If the marine drops it at his own feet, he'll hit automatically both himself and the horde. He must roll damage for himself and will be subject to autmatically confirmed Righteous Fury.

Khalayne said:

A year ago we had a thread about this on the forum, you might want to search. Differing solutions were proposed and the result was that FFG buffed them in their errata. Are you aware of the errata and its changes? Because with the errata I don't think SW are that underpowered anymore. Counter-attack is nothing to sneeze at in melee (=better than frenzy). It makes both Assault Marines as well as Devastators with Stalwart Defence into fierce fighters. And it opens up Tactical Spacing squad mode ability for abuse (I don't allow it in my campaign though).

Ultimately whether a marine will be a bada** in combat depends more on specialty than chapter. Even a Blood Angels or Black Templar Tactical will suck in melee. You need to be an Assault Marine or a DW Champion from RoB to kick read ends and not take names in melee. Librarians can also become quite decent at mid-ranks.

Alex

Khalayne said:

1. Depends on how you narrate it and what the horde is. In horde combat, I'm not that opposed to a Marine with a heavy bolter continuing to blaze away regardless, despite being covered by swarms of Gretchin or whatever. Also, allow the players to solve the issue by using their brains. In a narrow hall or somewhere with a choke-point, the melee characters can prevent the horde getting to the Dev, leaving him clear of foes, and able to freely attack. If the players don't think to do this... tough luck!

Dropping a grenade and soaking the damage is fine by me. My players do it regularly with frag grenades.

2. Take a look at the errata. They get free stuff! The Frostblade is also amazing. The changes to Solo Mode in Rites of Battle and the Fenris Helm are also massively advantageous. But no character should be 'more bada$$' than another character choice by default, though. The Wolves are tough in the fiction... but so are every other Chapter. Supporting canon depicting their kill-count shouldn't make them 'better' than others in the rules (hopefully!). Also remember that the wolf niche isn't specifically close combat. They excel as point-men and are more the eyes and ears of the team than their pure close combat monster.

First Founding also gives the Space Wolves the option of starting with a trapping that grants them Frenzy. I love it!

Khalayne said:

In my campaign, we play almost all combats with minis, and to represent Hordes I use templates, irregular circles of cardboard about the size of a CD with a number of fiugres set upon it equal to the 'tens' value of the Horde's Magnitude. The rules say a Horde can attack anything within 'close proximity'; this is fairly vague, so I rule that a Horde can attack up to 1d5 meters out from the edge of the template, rolling each turn. If a Space Marine (or other opponent) is within this 'close proximity', but not within the template, they can use Ranged weapons normally; if the Horde has moved so close that the Marine figure must be placed on top of the Horde template, the character is considered 'swamped' and can only use melee weapons.

So, that's my solution: two ranges, 'Close Proximity' (=target can use Ranged weapons) and 'Swamped' (=target can't use Ranged weapons- including Grenades, unless a specific ability allows otherwise). Hope that's helpful.

PrinceOfMadness said:

1. All kinds of hordes, but lately mostly human rebels and Homagaunts and/or termagaunts.

2. I actually have disallowed any players playing Librarians. I find them to be better plot hooks and mysterious characters.

ak-73 said:

1. I wasnt aware that it was a special Ultramarine talent. Nice to know. Also thought the frags did more magnitude damage, but with the errata i guess you are right. Other than that i think you solution is something along the lines of what i was hoping for. I'll discuss it with my group. Thanks



2. I have taken the errata into account. I'll see if i can find that thread. Maybe something useful will pop up. I certainly dont want to make them over the top and unbalance the game in the Space Wolves favor. From a roleplaying perspective they are awesome as they are.

Siranui said:

1. My problem with this scenario is of one or two Assault marines hold a chokepoint and a devastator stands behind the Assault marines will be in the line of fire. How would you suggest dealing with this? I suppose i could use the frendly fire optional rule, but with all the bonuses for shooting at a horde they will never ever miss making that rule pretty much useless.



2. The errata is included in my evaluation of the class. You are right ofc that the wolves shouldnt be any more badass than the other chapters, and i havent looked over the changes to solo mode in rites of battle. However i still think canon points then towards being particularly nasty up close and personal. Which "Prospery Burns" in the Horus Heresy book ably depicts. Not gonna make a big point of it though. Mainly its my players who are having an issue with this.

HappyDaze said:

Awesome! I didnt know. I'll get that ASAP.

Adeptus-B said:

I tend to use minis and templates like you do as well. Makes it more tactical and visible with no misunderstandings on what is going on.

My argument with my devastator is that from my perspective a devastator is amazing at range, but melee combat is their achilles heel. Makes sense to me that a devastator shouldnt be able to dish out the same amount of hurt to a melee enemy, and tyranids close really fast. He doesnt agree and feels useless when in melee. Maybe there is a middle ground. Allowing him to dish out some of his damage potential, but at the same time letting him feel he is on thin ice.

In my game if a horde doesnt reach them i judge they arent in melee, but if they touch base with them they are.

Yes, it sucks to be a Devastator in melee. It also sucks to be an Assault Marine at range. If your players play smart and tactical, the Devastator should only rarely be in melee combat, and when he is he can always use a pistol to benefit from his ideally high Ballistic Skill. The Devastator is king of ranged combat, he doesn't need any special rules to soothe his hurt feelings in melee.

My advice is to encourage your players to fight smarter, not harder. If your Devastator sets up in an elevated position well behind the rest of the Kill-Team, he can sow death and destruction from a good distance away. If your Devastator utilizes cover, he'll be laughing at return fire. I had a Tactical Marine set up as a sniper with a Stalker-Pattern Boltgun who could shoot half a kilometer away with no penalties, in fact he had significant pluses (not least of which was the unlikelihood of return fire). Simplest way to encourage them to do this is to have enemies also making use of good tactics - should start wheels turning.

Get your Devastator a Hand Flamer along with Cleanse and Purify. Now he can melee against Hordes just as well as anyone.

Khalayne said:

While it doesn't become available until Rank 3, the Heroes Saga Solo Mode ability in First Founding should help out in this respect.

Khalayne said:

Well, before the errata there was a dispute when I claimed that the Space Wolves were a melee chapter. So there you go, that explains it. That said they shouldn't be better than Black Templars or Blood Angels in melee. And if you look at the chapter advances, none of the melee chapters get amazing stuff like extra attacks or parries or preternatural speed or blade master.

Blood Angels get Assassin Strike and Acrobatics. Okay, that is very good. Storm Wardens get a very good Thunder Charge. Space Wolves get Counter-attack. Good stuff. Black Templars? Only their hatred based talents. Not so good. Well, at least they get Holy Vengeance which makes up for it; that squad mode ability is amazing.

So overall Blood Angels take the lead with Assassins Strike and Blood Frenzy. Behind that come Space Wolves, Black Templar, Storm Wardens on about equal footing. I am fine with that.

Alex

Thanks for all the replies. Will give me some arguments to come up with for my overly spoiled players.

Just one more question:

How would you handle a devastator shooting into a horde at range that is currently engaged with an assault marine? Do you judge that there is a chance that the assault marine could be hit with stray shots or just assume the horde is big enough that the devastator can shoot into it without fear of hitting his fellow marine?

Depends solely on the actual size of the horde in the GM's imagination, I'd say. If you imagine a marine beleagured by dozens of rebels, it would be no problem. If he is in a fight with 5-8 fire warriors, it might be more difficult. There is no hard and fast rule that satisfies every conceivable scenario; your player's should be able to guess from context.

Alex

Khalayne said:

That depends on how clever the player is. If he can find an elevated position or a crate to stand on, he can shoot over his comrades. If he forgoes the backpack ammo supply and takes a jump pack instead, he could take to the high ground. He doesn't have to be shooting at the ones his Brothers are fighting; he can aim for the guys shoving their way through to get there. Describe the terrain, and let the players think of something. There isn't always a way of keeping the Dev out of close combat, but sometimes there is.

If he can't get a completely clear line of fire, you might want to just apply a penalty: -20 or -30 aren't too extreme, and he'll still be able to contribute and do a reasonable amount of damage. That's what we generally do.

I do agree that Devs should indeed feel pretty boned when faced with a swarm of 'nids, up close and personal, just as an assault marine would be in serious trouble 500m away from a Tau battlesuit. That's what you get for playing a specialised character: You are weak when acting out of speciality, and sometimes that WILL happen. And Nids are pretty much the worst case scenario.

I'd recommend the other players simply trying to shield him as much as possible. Even if he can't then shoot back accurately or safely, the VERY least he can do is to throw frag grenades over his comrades and into the horde. As a Dev, he's doing 5+1d5 horde damage every time, at no risk.

Grenades are your players friends. They should learn to love them, and they should certainly be carrying more than 3 each!

I believe we were also in a situation once where we were rushed by literally thousands of cultists. The Dev wanted to ignore the ones trying to beat him to death in order to carry on shooting at the others. I believe our at-the-time house rule fix was that the Horde automatically hit the character, without needing to roll any dice. You might want to give that a try.

***

Prospero Burns does indeed paint the Space Wolves as good in melee... and at shooting, come to think of it. But all Marine fluff portrays the chapter that it's writing about in the best possible way. Don't forget as well that you are talking about the combat capabilities of the Space Wolves LEGION and the finest troops selected from that vast mass to lead the most dangerous assault the Space Wolves had ever participated in. And you're talking about their capabilities when being led by and inspired by their Primarch. Of course they're going to kick a$$!

There's really no reason that Wolves deserve to be 'better' than others. Giving them Counter-attack for free is a pretty generous way of catering to people who believed otherwise. I don't think they need more than that.

^ You can either use the suggested optional rule, and make the 'friendly' marine take a bolt shell form the burst, or you can be a bit more kind.

We tend to simply apply a -20/-30 modifier (depending on if they are to the side, or are right behind their ally, making the shot harder) to the Dev for being careful not to hit his comrade.

After all, we're talking a few seconds of combat here. At most the Dev needs perhaps half a second to put the burst in. It's just a question of waiting for the shot and being a bit careful.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Not as much as the Ultramarine one would...

The Wolves got kinda boned with their new solo mode in comparison. It was a nice idea, but being per mission makes it pretty poor in comparison by the other new solo modes, especially considering you have to do stuff for it, or lose Renown! Of course, any downside is more than made up by the Oath of the Wolf King and the two new awesome Squad Patterns...

Siranui said:

I'm pretty sure that Hero's Saga kicks in more than once per mission. I've not had a proper read of the final version of the book, so I don't know if or how it's been changed since writing, but I'm pretty sure that the individual effects kick in multiple times. You pick one of the three Sagas at the start of the mission, but the individual Saga abilities trigger multiple times based on the character's Rank. Like I said, this may have changed during playtesting, so don't quote me on this.

As for the requirements, I honestly think that Saga of the Warrior Born is the easiest to achieve - kick the bonus off two turns in a row against a single Horde and you should (for three turns of combat with one Horde - turn 1 to get a few kills and build the bonus, turn 2 to use the first bonus and kill more, and turn 3 to use the greater number of kills from turn 2 to kill even more) be able to do a lot of damage.

I'm glad you like the new material, though.

It is multiple times per mission, but I think it's only about once per two ranks. Which is poor in comparison to Solo Modes which are usable several rounds per combat, or even for the duration of combat. It's got a great feel to it, but the balance with other Chapters is poor, and the mechanics incongruous when compared to everyone else's 'once per session' or 'once per combat' style effects.

I haven't gone cover-to-cover as yet, but there's a lot of good things in there, and a lot of the more powerful stuff is tempered with dire warnings to the GM and player alike about the supposed scarcity of such things; which is a good thing.

Siranui said:

If that's your feeling, then I might suggest house-ruling it to once per rank rather than once per 2 ranks. That, however, I think does depend on how long a mission tends to be for a given group - short-duration missions will obviously provide more utility out of the ability than long-term multi-session missions. Individual preferences for mission length can, and should, vary.

I chose a per-mission limitation mainly because it struck me as the kind of thing that a character should decide upon at the start of the mission, rather than being a purely out-of-character session-to-session choice. That in itself does lead down particular lines of thought and design.

Making the choice of oath at the start of the mission is absolutely fine and makes sense. No problem. But a per-mission limit on use is at odds with the way other solo modes and much of the rest of the game works; which is on a 'per combat' or 'per session' basis. Reducing damage by 5 points once per mission for a rank 2 character is frankly poor when compared to -say- the Dark Angels solo mode presented in the main rules.

Essentially, I get the feeling that people play in different ways. Some people sit down for a day and blaze through a mission in a session. We don't have time for that, so a mission typically takes us 3-4 sessions to complete. I don't think that I'm much of a minority in this, and it's worth bearing in mind for balance, that a proportion of players play this way. It makes 'per mission' special abilities very weak when mixed with 'per session' ones and is worth considering during system design.

Essentially, there is an apples and oranges economy, and the values can fluctuate wildly. An only-apples economy would have been better from the design perspective.

I realise that 'you can just houserule it' is a fix, but ultimately - if I wanted to house rule everything - I'd just write the game system myself. I'd prefer out-of-the-box balance. The point is excaberated in DW where we take it in turns to run (and once again, I don't think we're alone in doing this, by a long chalk), which means that any house rule has to be hammered out and agreed by everyone.

There does also seem to be a lot of variation in regards some of the power levels between Chapters; at first glance, anyway.

Siranui said:

This has always struck me as a bit of a non-argument, really - there's a colossal difference between making minor adjustments to something to better suit a given group's preferred playstyle and writing an entire game. Changing the number of times a given special ability can be used is a matter of moments, while writing a game system is a matter of many, many man-hours.

And, as you yourself have mentioned, people's playstyles do differ. What works for one group will not inherent suit another, and with that in mind balance becomes subjective (well, moreso - asking "what is game balance" is akin to asking "what is art", though far less world-shaping and philosophical).

I'll stop here, because I can feel an entirely misplaced and unjustified rant coming on that really shouldn't leave my brain.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Shouldn't a purchased product be as-close-to-perfect straight out of the box as possible, though? Asking for the best product possible isn't unreasonable, and it's not unreasonable to gear a product for the variety of common play-styles that are out there, amongst the audience.

Ultimately, the idea of 'just house rule it' can lead to a lazy design philosophy and a game like 1E V;tM, which was spoiled by poor mechanical implementation of an excellent idea. I'll cite CP2020 as another rule system that often required so much house ruling that it would indeed be easier to write a new system for cyberpunk games [and I did...]. They should have just fixed that *&^$ before shipping, instead of later having to release a GM guide that basically said 'Erm... some things are really broken because we clearly didn't think about them, and assumed that nobody who can do basic maths would ever play our game. If your players take advantage of them, just kill their characters and MAKE them play the RAI, rather than RAW'.

Some players also take massive exception to rule tweaks, causing friction that could have been avoided. I like polished and elegant systems that have ironed out all the issues - or at least as many as possible. I dream of finding one! And it is indeed sometimes easier to simply write what you want from scratch, rather than salvage a poorly implemented system. Fortunately, DW isn't 'that' bad, and most of the flaws have been picked up in errata, while many obvious pitfalls have been avoided.

Ultimately, introducing apples and oranges economies into systems tends to lead to problems. Sometimes 'once per day' is just ten times better than 'once per game' and vice versa. I think that a shared 'currency' for abilities is generally a safer tack to take, as that way things don't vary based on play-style.

Rant away...